Tombstone epitaph., 1887-10-01
MOUNTAIN MAID.
THE DECISION AGAINST HER.
The Supreme Court of Arizona Holds the Tomb. stone Townste Patent to Be Paramount to the Patent to the Mountain
 Mad Mine.


 Ct now before the people of this city is the lare d, c,slon of the Supreme Court in the Mountain Maid cases, the EPI- TAPH congralulates i,self upon being the frs paper in he Territory to publish the conpl te text of the decision. There were three cases carried up from Cochise county on appeal, namely James Reilly vs Benoni Backmore, James Reilly vs. G orso G. Berry, and the Mountain Maid Mnlng company vs. James Reilly, which were reviewed by the Supreme Court at the aojou ned January term, 1887. Fol- ing Is the decisions:
 The question presented in these cases is between title derived from the Tomb stone townsite patent and that derived from patent to the Mountain Maid min ing claim. The da of entry of the ,ownsite Is April 9, 1880; the mining pat ent was dated August IS, 1882. Febru- ary 25, 1879, there Was filed notice of ioNotioii VI tllS Nldlu llllllS This notice is so uncertain that the land claimed cannot be identified. It is aided by no evidence whatever. November f 20, 1880, the record was amended, and on August IS, 1882, patent was issued to the land described in the amendment. This amendment was after the entry of the townste. The mining title cannot be superior to the townsite title unless the location earlier than the townsite be held to have fixed the title. A location of mining claim, to fix the title as against alter acquired rights by entry and patent, should be sufficiently clear to designate the ground claimed, and should be marked on the ground by monuments showing the extent of possession. If the location on its face be uncertain, the un- certainty could be aided by evidence of the possession or of monuments, but location notice on its face uncertain and without evidence of what land was occu- pied cannot be evidence for any purpose An amendment afterwards made de- scriblng different land, or making certain what was uncertain, cannot revert back to the original defective location. The entry of the townsite intervening after the first location and before the amend ment must be prior in right as it is prior in time. If thls were not SO it would open the door to great wrongs. A per son might locate mining claim, and by doing SIoo worth of work annually, lie still and permit title to be acquired from townsite, buildings to be erected, thous. anGs of dollars to be spent, and then ap- ply for d patent, amend his record, and swing his claim around so as to include the mos valuable improvements, and claim; and ;uerc Is nn limit to he time nc mgh wait. It would be monstrous act of 1872 anu tne townsite act as w"uld maue such r. suit possible. townslte entry up n land mt kn 'wn to De mineral Ian at the tine of entr, Is prior | any after acquired mining clam. (D,t lack v,. Hawke, Ii5 U S., 3o2)
 We have vewed with care the Butte Guy Sm1k, House lode Cases, I2 Pacific Report r, S58, and King vs. Thomas, Ib. 845 We concur with these cases in hoiulng that all mines, mining claims and possessions held under existing laws arc excluded from ,he term, of townsite patent, tn II d inning clam located be- fore the townsite entry is paramoun thereto. We also go so far as to say that lands upon winch is any mine of golo, silver, cinnabar or copper, or known to be such mineral lands at the time of townsite entry, are not included in such townsite entry If those cases are to be construed as holding, if minerals shall be discovered in lands conveyed by a town site patent after the patent, ard located as such, that such after discovery and location becomes paramount to a town site patent, and takes such lands out from the operation of such patent, we do not concur with them. The question does not arise in the Smoke House cases
 In the King case there is some doubt as to whether this question is passed upon. The Court m that case properly held that whether the lands were as a matter of fact mineral lands is res aaIuaicated by the patent to the mining claim. They hold that the Silver King was valid mining claim at the time of the issuing of the townsite patent This vlew of these cases will meet appreciation, and clearly states the law as we understand it. The case before us, however, seeks to apply the principle to an invalid mining claim prior to the townsite patent, and without proof that any mine existed prior to the town,t- en:ry, or that the lands were known t. contain mineral veins or depos- it>, or h,t there was any possr ssion un der exis'ng laws. This is very dnfer- ent ques Ion. To hold that every pur- cra CT nf lot under a townsile paten ana who trtCtS valuable improvements
 of he